778 SCRA 250 / G.R. No. 173140. January 11, 2016.

MACTAN CEBU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

AUTHORITY [MCIAA], petitioner, vs. HEIRS OF
GAVINA IJORDAN, namely, JULIAN CUISON,
FRANCISCA CUISON, DAMASINA CUISON, PASTOR
CUISON, ANGELINA CUISON, MANSUETO CUISON,
BONIFACIA CUISON, BASILIO CUISON, MOISES
CUISON, and FLORENCIO CUISON, respondents.
Civil Law; Contracts; Agency; Article 1317 of the Civil
Code provides that no person could contract in the name
of another without being authorized by the latter, or unless
he had by law a right to represent him; the contract
entered into in the name of another by one who has no
authority or legal representation, or who has acted beyond
his powers, is unenforceable, unless it is ratified,
expressly or impliedly, by the person on whose behalf it
has been executed, before it is revoked by the other
contracting party.—Article 1317 of the Civil Code provides
that no person could contract in the name of another
without being authorized by the latter, or unless he had by
law a right to represent him; the contract entered into in
the name of another by one who has no authority or legal
representation, or who has acted beyond his powers, is
unenforceable, unless it is ratified, expressly or impliedly,
by the person on whose behalf it has been executed,
before it is revoked by the other contracting party. But the
_______________
* FIRST DIVISION.

251
 VOL. 778, JANUARY 11, 2016 251
Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority
(MCIAA) vs. Heirs of Gavina Ijordan

conveyance by Julian through the Deed had full force and

effect with respect to his share of 1/22 of the entire
property consisting of 546 square meters by virtue of its
being a voluntary disposition of property on his part.
Same; Land Registration; Torrens System; Under the
Torrens System, no adverse possession could deprive the
registered owners of their title by prescription; Thus, once
title is registered, the owner may rest secure, without the
necessity of waiting in the portals of the court, or sitting
on the mirador su casa to avoid the possibility of losing
his land.—MCIAA’s contention on acquisitive prescription
in its favor must fail. Aside from the absence of the
satisfactory showing of MCIAA’s supposed possession of
the subject lot, no acquisitive prescription could arise in
view of the indefeasibility of the respondents’ Torrens title.
Under the Torrens System, no adverse possession could
deprive the registered owners of their title by
prescription. The real purpose of the Torrens System is to
quiet title to land and to stop any question as to its
legality forever. Thus, once title is registered, the owner
may rest secure, without the necessity of waiting in the
portals of the court, or sitting on the mirador su casa to
avoid the possibility of losing his land.
PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the
Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
The Solicitor General for petitioner.
 Silvino G. Maceren, Jr. and Belen Aldecoa
Padayhag for respondents.
BERSAMIN, J.:

A sale of jointly owned real property by a co-owner

without the express authority of the others is
unenforceable against the latter, but valid and
enforceable against the seller.

252
252 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority
(MCIAA) vs. Heirs of Gavina Ijordan

The Case

This appeal assails the decision promulgated on

February 22, 2006 in C.A.-G.R. CV No.
61509, whereby the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed
1

the orders issued by the Regional Trial Court, Branch

53, in Lapu-Lapu City (RTC) on September 2,
1997, and March 6, 1998.
2 3

Antecedents

On October 14, 1957, Julian Cuizon (Julian) executed

a Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement and Sale (Deed)
4

covering Lot No. 4539 (subject lot) situated in Ibo,

Municipality of Opon (now Lapu-Lapu City) in favor of
the Civil Aeronautics Administration (CAA), the
predecessor-in-interest of petitioner Manila Cebu
International Airport Authority (MCIAA). Since then
until the present, MCIAA remained in material,
continuous, uninterrupted and adverse possession of
the subject lot through the CAA, later renamed the
Bureau of Air Transportation (BAT), and is presently
known as the Air Transportation Office (ATO). The
subject lot was transferred and conveyed to MCIAA
by virtue of Republic Act No. 6958.
In 1980, the respondents caused the judicial
reconstitution of the original certificate of title
covering the subject lot (issued by virtue of Decree
No. 531167). Consequently, Original Certificate of
Title (OCT) No. RO-2431 of the Register of Deeds of
Cebu was reconstituted for Lot No. 4539 in the
names of the respondents’ predecessors-in-interest,
namely, Gavina Ijordan, and Julian, Francisca,
Damasina, Marciana, Pastor, Angela, Mansueto,
Bonifacia, Basilio, Moises and
_______________
1 Rollo, pp. 8-18; penned by Associate Justice Apolinario D.
Bruselas, Jr., with the concurrence of Associate Justices Arsenio
J. Magpale (retired/deceased) and Vicente L. Yap (retired).
2 Id., at pp. 95-99.
3 Id., at pp. 112-113.
4 Id., at pp. 59-61, 9-10.

253
VOL. 778, JANUARY 11, 2016 253
 Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority
(MCIAA) vs. Heirs of Gavina Ijordan

Florencio, all surnamed Cuison. The respondents’

5

ownership of the subject lot was evidenced by OCT

No. RO-2431. They asserted that they had not sold
their shares in the subject lot, and had not
authorized Julian to sell their shares to MCIAA’s
predecessor-in-interest.6

The failure of the respondents to surrender the

owner’s copy of OCT No. RO-2431 prompted MCIAA to
sue them for the cancellation of title in the
RTC, alleging in its complaint that the certificate of
7

title conferred no right in favor of the respondents

because the lot had already been sold to the
Government in 1957; that the subject lot had then
been declared for taxation purposes under Tax
Declaration No. 00387 in the name of the BAT; and
that by virtue of the Deed, the respondents came
under the legal obligation to surrender the certificate
of title for cancellation to enable the issuance of a
new one in its name.
At the trial, MCIAA presented Romeo Cueva, its legal
assistant, as its sole witness who testified that the
documents pertaining to the subject lot were the
Extrajudicial Settlement and Sale and Tax
Declaration No. 00387 in the name of the BAT; and
that the subject lot was utilized as part of the
expansion of the Mactan Export Processing Zone
Authority I. 8

After MCIAA’s presentation of evidence, the

respondents moved to dismiss the complaint upon
the Demurrer to Evidence dated February 3,
1997, contending that the Deed and Tax Declaration
9

No. 00387 had no probative value to support MCIAA’s

cause of action and its prayer for relief. They cited
Section 3, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court which
provided that “when the subject of inquiry is the
contents of a document, no evidence shall be
admissible other than the original document
_______________
5 Id., at pp. 63-64.
6 Id., at pp. 95-96.
7 Id., at pp. 65-70.
8 Id., at p. 96.
9 Id., at pp. 89-92.

254
254 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority
(MCIAA) vs. Heirs of Gavina Ijordan

itself.” They argued that what MCIAA submitted was

a mere photocopy of the Deed; that even assuming
that the Deed was a true reproduction of the original,
the sale was unenforceable against them because it
was only Julian who had executed the same without
obtaining their consent or authority as his coheirs;
that Article 1317 of the Civil Code provided that “no
one may contract in the name of another without
being authorized by the latter, or unless he has by
law a right to represent him”; and that the tax
declaration had no probative value by virtue of its
having been derived from the unenforceable sale.
MCIAA opposed the Demurrer to Evidence in due
course.10

In its order dated September 2, 1997, the RTC

11

dismissed MCIAA’s complaint insofar as it pertained

to the shares of the respondents in Lot No. 4539 but
recognized the sale as to the 1/22 share of Julian,
disposing as follows:

Wherefore, in the light of the foregoing

considerations, defendants’ demurrer to evidence is
granted with qualification. Consequently, plaintiff’s
complaint is hereby dismissed insofar as it pertains
to defendants’ shares of Lot No. 4539, as reflected in
Original Certificate of Title No. RO 2431. Plaintiff,
however, is hereby declared the owner of 1/22 share
of Lot No. 4539. In this connection, the Register of
Deeds of Lapu-Lapu City is hereby directed to effect
the necessary change in OCT No. RO-2431 by
replacing as one of the registered owners, “Julian
Cuizon, married to Marcosa Cosef,” with the name of
plaintiff. No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED. 12
The RTC observed that although it appeared from the
Deed that vendor Julian was the only heir of the late
Pedro Cuizon,
_______________
10 Id., at pp. 93-94.
11 Id., at pp. 95-99.
12 Id., at p. 99.

255
VOL. 778, JANUARY 11, 2016 255
Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority
(MCIAA) vs. Heirs of Gavina Ijordan

thereby adjudicating unto himself the whole of Lot

No. 4539, it likewise appeared from the same Deed
that the subject lot was covered by Cadastral Case
No. 20, and that Decree No. 531167 had been issued
on July 29, 1930; that having known that the subject
lot had been covered by the decree issued long
before the sale took place, the more appropriate
thing that MCIAA or its representatives should have
done was to check the decreed owners of the lot,
instead of merely relying on the tax declaration
issued in the name of Pedro Cuizon and on the
statement of Julian; that the supposedly
uninterrupted possession by MCIAA and its
predecessors-in-interest was not sufficiently
established, there being no showing of the
improvements introduced on the property; and that
even assuming that MCIAA had held the material
possession of the subject lot, the respondents had
remained the registered owners of Lot No. 4539 and
could not be prejudiced by prescription.
MCIAA moved for reconsideration, but the RTC
13

denied its motion on March 6, 1998.14

MCIAA appealed to the CA, submitting that: 15

I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN RULING THAT ONLY

THE SHARE OF JULIAN CUIZON WAS SOLD TO
PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT WAY BACK IN 1957.

II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DISREGARDING THE

UNEXPLAINED, UNREASONABLE AND TEDIOUS
INACTION OF DEFENDANT-APPELLEES WHICH
CONSTITUTE THEIR IMPLIED RATIFICATION OF THE
SALE WHICH THEY CANNOT NOW CONVENIENTLY
IMPUGN IN ORDER TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE
PHENOMENAL RISE IN LAND VALUES IN MACTAN
ISLAND.
_______________
13 Id., at pp. 100-111.
14 Id., at pp. 112-113.
15 Id., at pp. 152-153.

256
256 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority
(MCIAA) vs. Heirs of Gavina Ijordan
III. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN RULING THAT
PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT HAS NOT PROVEN
POSSESSION OVER SAID LOT.

IV. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING

MOTU PROPRIO DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES AS
GUILTY OF LACHES AND/OR ESTOPPEL IN THE FACE
OF CLEAR EVIDENCE FROM THE VERY FACTS OF THE
CASE ITSELF; IT SHOULD BE NOTED, MOREOVER
THAT IT WAS PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT WHO INITIATED
THE COMPLAINT HENCE THE SAME COULD NOT
PROPERLY BE RAISED AS DEFENSES HEREIN BY
PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT.

V. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DISREGARDING THE

VALID PROVISION OF THE EXTRAJUDICIAL
SETTLEMENT AND SALE THAT DEFENDANTS-
APPELLEES MERELY HOLD THE TITLE IN TRUST FOR
PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT AND ARE THEREFORE
OBLIGATED TO SURRENDER THE SAME TO
PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT SO THE TITLE COULD BE
TRANSFERRED TO IT AS THE VENDEE WAY BACK IN
1957.

In the assailed decision promulgated on February 22,

2006,16

the CA affirmed the orders of the RTC issued on

September 2, 1997 and March 6, 1998.
17 18
The CA subsequently denied MCIAA’s motion for
reconsideration on June 15, 2006.
19 20

Issues

In this appeal, MCIAA submits the following

grounds: 21

_______________
16 Id., at pp. 8-18.
17 Id., at pp. 95-99.
18 Id., at pp. 112-113.
19 Id., at pp. 166-175.
20 Id., at pp. 19-20.

257
VOL. 778, JANUARY 11, 2016 257
Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority
(MCIAA) vs. Heirs of Gavina Ijordan

THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT

CONSIDERING THE FOLLOWING:

I. RESPONDENTS WERE FULLY AWARE OF THE SALE

OF THE SUBJECT LOT IN 1957 AND PETITIONER’S
CONTINUOUS POSSESSION THEREOF.

II. RESPONDENTS’ INACTION FOR MORE THAN

THIRTY (30) YEARS TO RECOVER POSSESSION OF
THE LOT AMOUNTS TO AN IMPLIED RATIFICATION OF
THE SALE.

III. PETITIONER’S POSSESSION OF THE LOT SINCE

1957 IS BORNE BY THE CASE RECORD.

IV. RESPONDENTS ARE CLEARLY GUILTY OF

ESTOPPEL BY LACHES, WHICH LEGALLY BARS THEM
FROM RECOVERING POSSESSION OF THE LOT.

In other words, was the subject lot validly conveyed

in its entirety to the petitioner?
In support of its appeal, MCIAA insists that the
respondents were fully aware of the transaction with
Julian from the time of the consummation of the sale
in 1957, as well as of its continuous possession
thereof; that what was conveyed by Julian to its
22

predecessor-in-interest, the CAA, was the entirety of

Lot No. 4539, consisting of 12,012 square meters, not
just his share of 1/22 of the whole lot; that the
respondents were guilty of inexplicable inaction as
to the sale, which manifested their implied
ratification of the supposedly unauthorized act of
Julian of selling the subject lot in 1957; that although
the respondents were still minors at the time of the
execution of the sale, their ratification of Julian’s act
became evident from the fact that they had not
impugned the sale upon reaching the age of majority;
that they asserted their claim only after knowing of
the phenomenal rise in the value
_______________
21 Id., at pp. 29-30.
22 Id., at p. 30.

258
258 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority
(MCIAA) vs. Heirs of Gavina Ijordan

of the lot in the area despite their silence for more

than 30 years; and that they did not assert ownership
for a long period, and did not exercise physical and
constructive possession by paying the taxes or
declaring the property for taxation purposes.
On their part, the respondents aver that they were
not aware of the sale of the subject lot in 1957
because the sale was not registered, and because
the subject lot was not occupied by MCIAA or its
lessee; that they became aware of the claim of
23

MCIAA only when its representative tried to

intervene during the reconstitution of the certificate
of title in 1980; and that one of the co-owners of the
property, Moises Cuison, had been vigilant in
preventing the occupation of the subject lot by other
persons.

Ruling of the Court

The appeal has no merit.

 Firstly, both the CA and the RTC found the Deed
and the Tax Declaration with which MCIAA would
buttress its right to the possession and ownership of
the subject lot insufficient to substantiate the right
of MCIAA to the relief sought. Considering that
possession was a factual matter that the lower
courts had thoroughly examined and based their
findings on, we cannot undo their findings. We are
now instead bound and concluded thereby in
accordance with the well-established rule that the
findings of fact of the trial court, when affirmed by
the CA, are final and conclusive. Indeed, the Court is
not a trier of facts. Moreover, this mode of appeal is
limited to issues of law; hence, factual findings
should not be reviewed unless there is a showing of
an exceptional reason to review them. Alas, that
showing is not made.
Secondly, the CA and the RTC concluded that the
Deed was void as far as the respondents’ shares in
the subject lot
_______________
23 Id., at p. 192.

259
VOL. 778, JANUARY 11, 2016 259
Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority
(MCIAA) vs. Heirs of Gavina Ijordan
were concerned, but valid as to Julian’s share. Their
conclusion was based on the absence of the
authority from his co-heirs in favor of Julian to
convey their shares in the subject lot. We have no
reason to overturn the affirmance of the CA on the
issue of the respondents’ co-ownership with Julian.
Hence, the conveyance by Julian of the entire
property pursuant to the Deed did not bind the
respondents for lack of their consent and authority in
his favor. As such, the Deed had no legal effect as to
their shares in the property. Article 1317 of the Civil
Code provides that no person could contract in the
name of another without being authorized by the
latter, or unless he had by law a right to represent
him; the contract entered into in the name of another
by one who has no authority or legal representation,
or who has acted beyond his powers, is
unenforceable, unless it is ratified, expressly or
impliedly, by the person on whose behalf it has been
executed, before it is revoked by the other
contracting party. But the conveyance by Julian
through the Deed had full force and effect with
respect to his share of 1/22 of the entire property
consisting of 546 square meters by virtue of its being
a voluntary disposition of property on his part. As
ruled in Torres, Jr. v. Lapinid:
24

x x x even if a co-owner sells the whole property as

his, the sale will affect only his own share but not
those of the other co-owners who did not consent to
the sale. This is because the sale or other
disposition of a co-owner affects only his undivided
share and the transferee gets only what would
correspond to his grantor in the partition of the thing
owned in common.

MCIAA’s assertion of estoppel or ratification to bar

the respondents’ contrary claim of ownership of their
shares in the subject lot is bereft of substance. The
doctrine of estoppel applied only to those who were
parties to the contract and
_______________
24 G.R. No. 187987, November 26, 2014, 742 SCRA 646.

260
260 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority
(MCIAA) vs. Heirs of Gavina Ijordan

their privies or successors-in-interest. Moreover, the

25

respondents could not be held to ratify the contract

that was declared to be null and void with respect to
their share, for there was nothing for them to ratify.
Verily, the Deed, being null and void, had no adverse
effect on the rights of the respondents in the subject
lot.
Lastly, MCIAA’s contention on acquisitive
prescription in its favor must fail. Aside from the
absence of the satisfactory showing of MCIAA’s
supposed possession of the subject lot, no
acquisitive prescription could arise in view of the
indefeasibility of the respondents’ Torrens title.
Under the Torrens System, no adverse possession
could deprive the registered owners of their title by
prescription. The real purpose of the Torrens
26

System is to quiet title to land and to stop any

question as to its legality forever. Thus, once title is
registered, the owner may rest secure, without the
necessity of waiting in the portals of the court, or
sitting on the mirador su casa to avoid the possibility
of losing his land. 27

WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition for

review on certiorari; and AFFIRMS the decision
promulgated on February 22, 2006.
No pronouncement on costs of suit.
SO ORDERED.
Sereno (CJ., Chairperson), Leonardo-De Castro,
Perez and Perlas-Bernabe, JJ., concur.
Petition denied, judgment affirmed.
_______________
25 Article 1439, Civil Code.
26 Bishop v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 86787, May 8, 1992, 208
SCRA 636, 641.
27 Francisco v. Rajas, G.R. No. 167120, April 23, 2014, 723
SCRA 423, 450-451.

261
VOL. 778, JANUARY 11, 2016 261
 Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority
(MCIAA) vs. Heirs of Gavina Ijordan

Notes.—The Torrens system is not a mode of

acquiring titles to lands; it is merely a system of
registration of titles to lands. (Rabaja Ranch
Development Corporation vs. AFP Retirement and
Separation Benefits System, 592 SCRA 201 [2009])
All lands of the public domain are owned by the
State — the registration of lands of the public
domain under the Torrens system, by itself, cannot
convert public lands into private lands. ( Hacienda
Bigaa, Inc. vs. Chavez, 618 SCRA 559 [2010])

——o0o——